Robbery in Washington, DC includes three basic elements. First, there is “force or violence, whether against resistance or by sudden or stealthy seizure or snatching, or by putting in fear.” This element is crafted to cover a whole range of different behaviors. I could push you and take your purse. I could threaten you with a weapon. I could threaten you with words. Alternatively, an aggressive or threatening demeanor alone could satisfy this element of the crime so long as my demeanor was sufficient to put you in fear for your immediate safety.

Second, there is the taking of something of value. The item needn’t have much value. In fact, the items need not have monetary value or value to anyone except to the person from whom it was taken. If I take a pen from you, that could satisfy this element of the crime.

Third, the taking needs to be either directly from the person or from the person’s possession. If I grab your purse from your hands, that is a taking from the person. If I grab the purse from next to you on a park bench, that is a taking from your possession.

Now, it doesn't take Elmo to tell you that —in actuality— the cop is not going to get charged over this incident. Just won't happen.

Staley says his smartphone was snatched by a D.C. Police officer last Friday evening along Raleigh Place in Southeast D.C. Staley says he saw police punching a man they were arresting and another plain-clothes officer harassing the people watching.

"So I go and grab my phone and start trying to record it," says Staley, a 26-year-old employee of a private, non-profit mental health agency in the District. "And once I do that, another vice cop reaches over my back and grabs my phone and tells me he's not giving my phone back."

...

Staley says when he eventually got his phone back later that night, the memory card was missing - including hundreds of pictures of his four-year-old daughter.

That story, if proven, seems to meet the three essential elements of the crime of robbery in the District of Columbia (DC ST § 22-2801).

Mr Staley alleges that the officer grabbed his phone. That's a “sudden snatching”. Mr Staley's phone was valuable to him. And Mr Staley's phone was taken directly from his person.

Even if, the phone was eventually returned to Mr Staley, the phone's memory card was not. The memory card was valuable to Mr Staley, and it, along with the phone that held it, was suddenly snatched directly from Mr Staley.

Re:

Re: Re:

Wow, that really seems like a nice working environment that in now way seems to encourage harassment and instead foster a culture of standing up for what is right even if it means going against your colleges.
What could possibly go wrong?

Well, THAT didn't take long...

If it is any indication of how badly the policy change is needed, it's the amount of time it takes to have it come into play once it's made. Now let's see if the announcement has any follow up or if it was just hot air.

Actually...

When I first saw the automatic upload "feature" that is enabled by default in Google+, I was a little annoyed. I mean, I don't really want every picture I take uploaded to the cloud. However, here is an instance where it would be highly useful. Of course you would need to lock your screen before they took your phone (shouldn't be too hard to do). Once you receive it back, you then should have proof if any data was missing as any images missing from the card that were uploaded to Google+ should easily prove that they violated the policy.

According to a local Fox TV affiliate, Earl Staley, a 26-year-old local resident started trying to record officers who were punching a man who they were arresting.
"So I go and grab my phone and start trying to record it," Staley told Fox 5 News in the District. "And once I do that, another vice cop reaches over my back and grabs my phone and tells me he's not giving my phone back."

And later in the same article, a portion of the policy was quoted:

“A member [of the police department] shall not, implicitly or explicitly, coerce consent to take possession of any recording device or any information thereon,” the new order states.

The officer did not "coerce consent to take possession". He didn't ask or demand for the phone, he just took it. So that makes it all right, then; the new policy remains unviolated. Apparently DC will have to craft a NEW policy addressing the ability of an officer to walk up to any citizen and just take something of theirs. Funny, you'd think there'd be a law against that. Already.

Re:

Apparently DC will have to craft a NEW policy addressing the ability of an officer to walk up to any citizen and just take something of theirs. Funny, you'd think there'd be a law against that. Already.

Whoever by force or violence, whether against resistance or by sudden or stealthy seizure or snatching, or by putting in fear, shall take from the person or immediate actual possession of another anything of value, is guilty of robbery, and any person convicted thereof shall suffer imprisonment for not less than 2 years nor more than 15 years.

Re: Re:

You forgot the amendment:
"Unless you are a police and really feel like it in which case we will have to have a talk with you over coffee and donuts and then send you on a paid vacation curtsy of the public"

What was he doing.

I get it if there's something going on here, or is this guy a "rights" nut who's doing it just because he can.

If someone was recording me whilst I was going about my business, I'd be very inclined to say "what are you doing and why".

I understand that the police shouldn't have seized the tape from this guy, unless the guy was recording whilst going off, or had recorded someone commiting a crime and it would likely be great evidence in court.

My main point here though, is, "Just because you can something, doesn't mean you should"

Re: What was he doing.

You know THEY BANNED IT... The Chief said no taking recording devices even if they're in the way. They could be asked to move out of the way. If they were arrested for something their digital devices were supposed to be off limits without a warrant.

This guy if his video is removed should use advanced data recovery to prove it was and give these assholes what they deserve.

It's not really that hard to recover data and the officers deleting it are probably too retarded to realize just how easy data is to recover.

This ban is pointless though just for one reason. The police are above the law and they know it. I mean ffs they get a paid vacation for murder what makes anyone think they would get in any actual trouble for seizing someones phone.

Do they care about the lawsuits? Of course not why would they when they are going to be paid for with tax payers money.

Re: Re: What was he doing.

They don't get a paid vacation for murder. They get a 'paid vacation' for when they have been accused of using their firearm in the line of duty and that (to a normal person) appears to be murder until the investigation is done.

Many times, when something is ruled murder by the overseers in the police, the officer is charged with murder... however, many times, the officer will be let off solely because they are an officer 'of the law'.

Well that didn't take long

Looks like we have our test case to see if the new 'rules' actually have any teeth.

I really hope the police involved get some serious punishment sent their way(unpaid leave if everything on the memory card is intact, flat out fired if anything, including the video taken, is missing), otherwise it's just sending the message that new rules or not, it's business as usual for them, and they can still go around stealing stuff without repercussions.

Re: It wasn't a seizure

Re: Re: It wasn't a seizure

I see that sarcasm isn't your forte.

Crimes against persons are very serious.

This is one of the statutes at issue in this discussion (DC ST § 22-2801):

Whoever by force or violence, whether against resistance or by sudden or stealthy seizure or snatching, or by putting in fear, shall take from the person or immediate actual possession of another anything of value, is guilty of robbery, and any person convicted thereof shall suffer imprisonment for not less than 2 years nor more than 15 years.

A crime which carries a sentence of more than one year imprisonment is a felony.